If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Quote:

Mr Bush said the biggest US error was the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib, which it was now paying for.The two leaders have never admitted their mistakes in such frank terms, the BBC's Jonathan Beale says.They also called for the international community to give its full support to the new Iraqi government.In a Washington news conference, the British prime minister said it was important to Iraq's leaders to know that "we will stand firm with them" against "terrorism and violence".

The talks in Washington also focused on Iran, with Mr Bush offering rewards for Tehran if it ends uranium enrichment.Both men have seen their popularity drop and are keen to ensure a positive legacy as their terms draw to a close, correspondents say.BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Iraq has cast a shadow over the leaders' careers and both were seeking to play up the potential for change afforded by the new democratically-elected government in Baghdad.

'Daunting' challenge
Asked about mistakes in Iraq, Mr Bush brought up the prisoner abuse scandal at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison."We've been paying for that for a long period of time," he said.He also said he regretted having used unsophisticated language such as "Wanted dead or alive", which had been misinterpreted in some parts of the world.The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the US president was full of introspection after frequently being criticised for lacking powers of self-analysis.

Mr Blair, who held talks with new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in Baghdad this week, was also prepared to acknowledge errors, accepting that the exclusion of all of Saddam Hussein's Baath party members from leadership roles may have only fuelled the insurgency.

But both men remained convinced that they had done the right thing in Iraq.
Mr Blair said: "I came away thinking the challenge is still immense, but I also came away thinking more certain than ever that we should rise to it."That challenge, he said, was "daunting... but inspiring".Whatever people's misgivings about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he said, "our duty, but also the duty of the whole international community, is to get behind this government and support it".However, neither man would set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Iran warning
They also discussed Iran's nuclear programme, and its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The US suspects Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, although Tehran says its work is for peaceful, energy purposes.Mr Bush said the US would continue to work with Iran's government despite its "intransigence" but urged it to suspend enrichment to avoid international isolation.The leaders meet again on Friday after Mr Blair's foreign policy speech at Georgetown University.In his speech, the UK leader is expected to focus on the values of democracy and reform of the post-World War II institutions, such as the UN and International Monetary Fund.Mr Blair has pledged to resign before his third term ends, which will be in May 2010 at the latest. Mr Bush leaves office in 2009.

The prime minister was given wholehearted support by the president, however. Asked by a journalist what Mr Bush wanted to see in Mr Blair's successor, Mr Bush replied: "I want him to be here so long as I'm president."

Collected fresh from BBC news a few hours ago. Ahah, finally, after all these years, they admitted their fault. Do you think that it might change anything from now on? I mean, the damage have been done. =/ What can they EVEN do now? If they only listened to the world and refrained from attacking Iraq at that moment, they wont need to worry about their popularity now. What do you think of it? Good news? Nothing new? Bad news? Any comments? Fire away.

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

It really doesn't change anything. Bush has been in office 5 years already, and he's done more than his share of damage. He doesn't need to worry about popularity anymore, since in 3 years he's gone for good.

Personally...it was just a huge waste of our Soldier's lives...and not to mention billions of dollars. But, that's what Bush thinks his job really is all about...wasting money and attacking small countries. He's a moron in my opinion...but Kerry wasn't any better. It was a lose-lose situation for us when both of them were running.

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

That's why we should never even had a war with Iraq. Speaking of Kerry as well, I thought he lose out pretty badly in the presidential debate? I'm not sure of it since I'm not an American. XD And now, US is telling UN and Iran that Iran should back off from uranium development. Is is going to be another war to destroy some hidden WMD again? Another drama with no good ending to both side is about to happen again while soldiers died, children who might just be another Nobel Prize winner died after his village got bombarded by US marines? Why does US want to fight so much? It really is a lose-lose situation here. =/

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Well, morons and people concerned with power rather than the good of the country (but hey, that's politics). I'm just suprised Bush hasn't tried to nuke the middle-east yet...or has he?

I didn't bother to watch the debates...but Bush apparently thinks he's got the best interest of the US in mind...but creating more and more enemies from the outside and haters on the inside is a good way to screw us over. Unless Bush can pull something amazing out of thin air in the next 3 years, he's going to go down as one of the worst presidents ever. Period.

Frankly, he's just a cocky S.O.B. He acts like he's omnipotent and knows everything, and that is extremely far from the truth. People who think that understand less than the average person.

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Originally Posted by jabbament

This is what happens when you have morons in charge.

Haha the eternal problem. What about the morons who choosed them ?

About Iran. What the U.S expects to do about it. I mean it's kinda obvious that they're goin for the Nuke once they mastered the technology. Most of the people in charge there are impulsive an religious fanatics ( no offense but where there's religion mixed with politic it's always a mess up - even if not , people aren't free ). They have a very primitive sense of proud ( even if it means doing dumb things ) so since Pakistan and India already got their Bombs , there's no way Iran is not going to try too. They want to proove they're not affraid of they neighbors hehe ...
But since China ( wich is actually economically growing faster than they can handle it them selves ) depends on the oil from Iran , China's never gonna allow any attack on Iran.
So let's prepare for another Nuclear Nation Huurraayy!

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Ahh, looking at Bush's history, if he wasn't the grand ole son of Sr. Bush, I'd be totally baffled as of to exactly how he achieved presidency with his apparent failure in a good many of his ventures. Lately, it's the monopolizing rich boys that get all the power. Democracy, huh? Politics is so manipulative. Bush saw the terrorist attacks as an opportunity to accomplish goals involving domination in the Middle East he'd been planning for a while. Or, scratch that, the whole lot of them had been plotting. He's at least partially a puppet.

The thing that bothers me about Bush is his "good, ole boy" act. Many of the people around here are convinced he's a laid back country boy - an ordinary person. People mistake his lacking public speaking skills for normalcy... He's been a pampered, spoiled rich boy all his life, though, it seems to me. Relying on Daddy's connections to get him out of deep water.

As for Blair and Bush. I think the admittance to the wrongs is a last-ditch attempt to save some dignity and popularity, rather than a sign of intent to change.

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

I think it had become obvious already that this was a total screw-up from the set-go. Iraq was too infested with Hussein's rats for America's intrusion to have any real positive consequences, plus Bush and Blair definitely went into with a poor agenda, and there wasn't enough support behind the war, not like there was behind our hunt for Osama bin Laden. Jabbs' right though, Kerry would have messed up just as royally. I still think we elected the best guy for the job out of these two (same with Bush-Gore), but either way it was a no-winner.

Unfortunately I don't see things improving much in the next Presidental Election either. But one thing's for sure, Americans will lect a Democrat one way or other next time. The Republicians' popularity have fallen, thanks to Bush. So it's quite likely we'll have the first female President of the U.S. for better or worse. It's kinda funny though, I feel that Democrats, when in power, will hurt Americans by throwing money to the people that didn't earn it, and on the other hand Republicans will hurt somebody else in the rest of the world. Nobody wins either way. As you guys can tell, I'm middle of the road, I don't care much for either political party. I vote for the guy. Unfortunately with inept candidates on both sides, I might as well just run for President myself. >.<

I'll vote for you, GK! GK for President! You can't mess up as bad as Bush did or Hilary will... -Jabbs

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Ah, ditto on the Kerry-Bush thing. Two terrible candidates, or so I thought. I was actually relieved I wasn't old enough to vote at that time. As for political parties, I'm a middling gal myself. To me, everyone gets so wrapped up in their "parties" (not always, but certainly often around here from what I've seen), that they start ignoring the issues in favor of "winning"... Very similar to the way I see people get riled up about their "teams" in sports. My grandfather votes a straight ticket every time and boasts of it, but when I question him about the individual people and their views, he snubs me. ;_;

It seems to me that sometimes a more conservative approach is called for and sometimes a more democratic approach is apporopriate. Either way, the new brands of both parties that have emerged in the past fifteen years are much more radical thatn either party started out. Or, at least it seems that way...

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

It's all because americans have a messed up voting system From what I've understood it's more a contest of popularity rather than a contest of political opinions? In that case there's no wonder Bush won..

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

can i join the conversation since i am from turkey and we're just so close to the "democracy" war for us, most people from europe, believed that it was clear from the beginning that war has nothing to with ladin or else..i guess even soldiers didnt believe from the beginning that they can find and arrest ladin.....and every day we see people trying to run away from iraq and war by passing turkey

Originally Posted by jabbament

Personally...it was just a huge waste of our Soldier's lives...and not to mention billions of dollars. But, that's what Bush thinks his job really is all about...wasting money and attacking small countries. He's a moron in my opinion...but Kerry wasn't any better. It was a lose-lose situation for us when both of them were running.

well if you think that war or any other war is a waste of soldiesr and money then you should wake up war; death for normal people,children,girls,women, old people...war; a deep impact on economy causing starvation and medical problems....war; secret moves on people like, rape, women selling, drugs, killing people for their internal organs and saying they died accidently...war; time for mafia or something like that to sell more weapons and gain more money for any other illegal moves....i would say let soldiers die and let money spend if these things will stop, because thats why they exist...of course it is not like i want people to die it is better not to start a war from the very beggining

Originally Posted by enzomars

Haha the eternal problem. What about the morons who choosed them ?

well for people who choose them, i would say i got an impression (when i was in usa) most american people doesnt care much about people from other continents..or would i say from other planet??? some people from usa that i spoke doesnt even know where iraq is?? or europe is a continent or a nation like usa that have states?? and they were asking why turkey not helping usa, arent we friends?? come on, you want a war with our neighbour and you want help?? why we should fight and die without any real reason?? i am not blaming usa people for voting for bush cause i understood them better now i guess since war is out from usa, and ecomony is good, they do not care much...of course not everyone but for general....

Originally Posted by enzomars

About Iran. What the U.S expects to do about it. I mean it's kinda obvious that they're goin for the Nuke once they mastered the technology. Most of the people in charge there are impulsive an religious fanatics ( no offense but where there's religion mixed with politic it's always a mess up - even if not , people aren't free ).

it is for sure that religion is always a part of politics, even in democracy and will always have an influence...but you can make that influence smaller or bigger..you can not move completely against or without religion because most people have belief in religion vatican, do you think that city is only for religious belief?? dont they have affect on countries?? no offense for christians just an example

for future i can say usa will definetly attack iran..people get used to usa attacks and starts war and i think people will not protest usa as much as they did when usa attacked iraq...most people will say thats normal... too bad, too bad,...

ps: usa says iran should not have nuclear bombs, while they do not destroy and decrease usa's nuclear bombs for years....usa is the one with russia who has most nuclear bombs and unlike russia they used it twice during war....well it is nature; if you are strong, then kick the weak ones

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Originally Posted by Gold Knight

For some people, it's popularity, for others, it's political decisions. More usually than not, it's both. It's not the voting system, it's the people

I don't live in the USA so I don't know about this, but a friend of mine (who lives there) told me that most people he met would either be like "Yeah, I'm american and I'm darn proud of everything this country has ever done" or "Yeah, I'm american, it sucks but I can't help it"..

And if I remember correctly you're american.. So who is better to ask about wethter this applies for the whole country or not, if not an american So to you Gold Knight: Does what I wrote up their make any sense of how americans usually are? *Yes I know you shouldn't generalize*

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Im from a country near iran, me and my friends do not hate USA with all the entertainment and development they are creating in this world. putting aside all this political issue, USA is not such a bad country. Unfortunately, its hard for us to accept USA now especially after seeing the prison abuse in Abu Ghraib, i mean what century are they living in? i thought those type of abuse was done way back when ppl had no culture and civilization. Why cant they just leave Iran and Iraq alone. I know Iran and Iraq wouldnt mind either.

I wonder,
will it be the same if someone else replace Bush?
How far will Bush go until he is satisfied?
What is Bush trying to proof or achieve?

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

just passing through and just quickly adding my views.

to start, no i dont hate americans, no, but i dont like what some americans stand for.
heres what ticks me of:
the hole iran thing. i dont believe a country should turn around to a next and say stop your production of enriching your country with better electicity and increasing the lifeyhood of many people whom live way under the poverty line. and for a country who has enough weapons to destroy the world 2/3 times over, it really does seem like as walkie said ''if you are strong, then kick the weak ones''

another thing that gets me is guantanamo bay. for a country who prides itself on democracy and legal rights, the fact that they keep men in a prison for as long as 3 years without no legal aid, no visitor, heck not even a phone call, complete isolation and take care of them to the point of tortoure (although sense the redefinition of tortour they are not legally tortouring anyone............but thats a hole next topic) personally the hole guantanamo bay is just in simple terms nothing but wrong. bit off topic sorry

back to bush and blair, enough of bush i guess eveyone here shares the same opinion on him. so over to blair, MY prime minister, the big dog of the country i live on. for a leader to go to war which i should mention almost 75% voted against is unforgivable. but i dont hate the guy fully, he has done well for the economy along with his chancellor of exchequer Grodem Brown. (i have a lot more to say about him, but i must go for now, i will re-edit this post when i return)

Re: Bush and Blair admit Iraq errors

Originally Posted by Kickmeister

I don't live in the USA so I don't know about this, but a friend of mine (who lives there) told me that most people he met would either be like "Yeah, I'm american and I'm darn proud of everything this country has ever done" or "Yeah, I'm american, it sucks but I can't help it"..

And if I remember correctly you're american.. So who is better to ask about wethter this applies for the whole country or not, if not an american So to you Gold Knight: Does what I wrote up their make any sense of how americans usually are? *Yes I know you shouldn't generalize*

Sorry if I offended any americans out there....

Yeah, kinda. A little more complicated though. You have the Patriots on one hand and the "other party" (Idealists?) on the other. Then you have the people "in the middle" between the two. And then you have the people who don't care at all as long as you leave them alone (they're usually the ones who don't even bother to vote.)

Patriots - well, as a country, America has gone a LONG way in an quick time... been through wars and depressions and civil turmoils, to outstanding success and pretty much molding this land into the mightiest country/government in the world with the largest and deadliest army. In Naruto, it would be the Fire Country, Konohagakure, the top dog of the world, ya know. So yeah, there's a certain sense of pride that comes with feeling you're an American, a descendent of all the generations that built this place, and I think we Americans have all felt it at some point. So I can totally sympathize with the Patriots, and it IS pretty cool to usually feel totally safe from the rest of the world (9/11 nowithstanding).

Anyway, patriots are usually watchdogs, people who have sworn to protect their country, government, homes, families, and friends from all outside forces, even at the risk of isolating themselves from the rest of the world. They're usually conservative because they don't like huge changes, unless it means the growth of their economy, more jobs, etc. and they usually believe in earning their own money, so they are for the most part are Republicans. The biggest setback of patriots are that they are sometimes narrow-minded, if they are so focused on America that they don't think about the consequences it might have on the rest of the world. I now think Bush definitely falls in that latter category. Nevertheless, I think a lot of countries can sympathize with the idea of being "patriots" though. The unfortunate thing is if you are "patriots" and we are "patriots" then where is the line drawn? That's usually how wars start.

What I call "Idealists" are usually the "other party" - people seeking to improve on what's already been established. They're "people people." Their ideas are usually more radical and aims at helping other people, though sometimes the ideas can backfire if they're not careful. For instance, some ideas might come with the risk of threatening the stability of the country and the happiness of our own citizens, so for the most part, their ideas don't come with a lot of approval from patriots. These people are usually unhappy with how the government is run in America and want to change it, so people who feel like things should have been done differently are usually in this party. Sometimes they don't really have much loyalty to Americans because they're trying to be a part of the rest of the world, too.

Now, "in the middle" between these parties is the best place to be, I think. To have some pride for the country, some sense of loyalty to the homeland, while at the same time trying to help all people, not just Americans, as a general rule. Doing everything carefully with the right motives, considering all the possible scenarios that might happen, and then deciding and supporting a decision and helping it work. But my opinion is that first you have to take care of your family before you can think of taking care of the rest of the world. For many Patriots, Americans ARE their family. For Idealists, they usually consider the rest of the world their family instead of just America. Somewhere in the middle I think is the best place to be.

And as for the final category, the Americans that don't bother to care, the types that are too lazy to vote - they should get out of the country. They're parasites. That's how I feel about 'em. =/